Bristol_Jonesey
In coding terms, they should be equal, so one could not sound "better" than the other.

Correct, if you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand X PC compressor. But that wasn't my question.
What about when you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand Y PC compressor? Two different competing products so not equal code anymore. That's my question. Would you buy the brand Y PC compressor if the brand X VST compressor cost the same and sounded better?

JohanSebatianGremlin

Kamikaze
]If I was to choose a 3rd part transient desgner, having a PC option would swing it's favour toward me.

 Out of curiosity would you buy a PC option over a similar priced VST alternative if the VST version worked better and/or sounded better?

I get that you prefer a PC option to a VST all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal. So I guess what I'm asking is, just how much do you prefer a PC option? Do you prefer it enough that its more important than sound quality?

I not sure I can answer that question, its too hypothetical. I'm not anti VST. My last purchase was Saturn, prrvious to that, MarkBass, these aren't things I'd use on many tracks at a time and don't suit PC format, they require more space to use the feature. But the simpler interfaced VST, I feel I'll throw them in and experiment more more if they were PC format
 
Are you not a fan of the PC format?
 
I really don't see the problem in telling suppliers you'd be interested more if they provided a PC format. And trying to encourage cake to build some bridges with othere developers?
 
 
 
 

I would love to see some more PC mods. I would buy the XLN Tran Shaper right now if it was available.

JohanSebatianGremlin

Bristol_Jonesey
In coding terms, they should be equal, so one could not sound "better" than the other.

Correct, if you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand X PC compressor. But that wasn't my question.
What about when you're comparing brand X VST compressor to brand Y PC compressor? Two different competing products so not equal code anymore. That's my question. Would you buy the brand Y PC compressor if the brand X VST compressor cost the same and sounded better?

There would have to be a clearly demonstrable improvement in order to make that sort of decision.
 
In the real world, the differences between different flavours of vst's are fairly negligible and all bets are off once you subject your signal to futrther sonic mayhem further down the chain.

Kamikaze
 
Are you not a fan of the PC format?
 
I really don't see the problem in telling suppliers you'd be interested more if they provided a PC format. And trying to encourage cake to build some bridges with othere developers?

I like the PC format just fine. There is no problem with telling vendors you'd like to see their products in that format. But I think there is also little need for it. Companies, profitable companies anyway, put a lot of effort into finding new markets to tap. 

My question was out of curiosity and nothing more because again, I'm reading the comments here and noticing that almost nothing about sound quality is being mentioned. Just a lot of 'if somebody made <insert processor type> in PC format, I'd buy it' period.

I like the PC format. So I'd certainly consider PC options if they're available. But saying I'd consider it is not the same as saying I'd buy it. Maybe I'm picking nits but I think the difference is important. 

Because at the end of the day, no one listening to the recordings I make gives a rats backside what format plugs I used. They only care about how it sounds. Therefore when I'm picking plugs, sound is what ultimately makes the decision for me. I guess I was just wondering if I'm in the minority with that opinion.

Ok, just thought of an example that fits your hypothetical questions. I bought the VKFX bundle, without comparing its phaser to any other phaser, it's tremelo to any other tremelo. It was a bundle of nice simple PC modules from a supplier whose quailty I trust, and had good reviews.
 
I'm no GAS head, my plugs are pretty streamlined. The majority oif extras from Cakewalk aren't installed and are hidden in CCC

Bristol_Jonesey
 
There would have to be a clearly demonstrable improvement in order to make that sort of decision.
 
In the real world, the differences between different flavours of vst's are fairly negligible and all bets are off once you subject your signal to futrther sonic mayhem further down the chain.

Well taste is subjective to be sure. But IME when it comes to things like compression and EQ, there ARE differences that can be heard. Same with reverb. Things like delay, phase, flange or leslie sim are more difficult to identify in blind hearing tests. But with each of those, feature set and usability of that feature set can make a big difference.
 
Other than being in a different location and looking cool in the rack, I haven't noticed too much difference in terms of usability between the two so far. But it stands to reason that the smaller footprint could lead to limits on how many controls/features can reasonably be crammed in. With things like delay, that could end up being a factor IMO.

JohanSebatianGremlin

Bristol_Jonesey
 
There would have to be a clearly demonstrable improvement in order to make that sort of decision.
 
In the real world, the differences between different flavours of vst's are fairly negligible and all bets are off once you subject your signal to futrther sonic mayhem further down the chain.

Well taste is subjective to be sure. But IME when it comes to things like compression and EQ, there ARE differences that can be heard. Same with reverb. Things like delay, phase, flange or leslie sim are more difficult to identify in blind hearing tests. But with each of those, feature set and usability of that feature set can make a big difference.
 
Other than being in a different location and looking cool in the rack, I haven't noticed too much difference in terms of usability between the two so far. But it stands to reason that the smaller footprint could lead to limits on how many controls/features can reasonably be crammed in. With things like delay, that could end up being a factor IMO.

This could be an issue for sure. But it is possible for a developer to incorporate tabbed views for complex gui's, another alternative could be for utilising a flyout, much like the Quadcurve
 

Bristol_Jonesey
 
This could be an issue for sure. But it is possible for a developer to incorporate tabbed views for complex gui's, another alternative could be for utilising a flyout, much like the Quadcurve
 

So if this works for you, is the correct question: "Why can't Cakewalk modify the PC rack to allow for inserting VSTs in as modules (it doesn't have to be anymore than a placeholder icon IMO) and when clicked on, the flyout window would open just like any other PC flyout?" That would a least make the decision to work in the way that suits you best. If you like inserting your VSTs in the channel strip, go for it. If you prefer working with PC plug ins (and I do quite often), you could insert them there.

Hi Tim
 
Currently I'm quite happy to insert whatever VST I need into the PC via an FX Chain.
This gives me all the flexibility I need and comes with the added bonus of separate sliders for IO volume/gain, and you can of course add as many vst's into a FX Chain as you like, all collapsed to a minimised state by a single click